DK-50, Still alive and well?

Paul Verizzo · May 4, 2015

Trask said:
Very interesting thread, which would be even more interesting with a few attached photos to illustrate?

I have learned that other than overall tonality of a given image, you can't learn any details from a computer screen. Unless perhaps an A-B enlarged segment comparison, I don't see most images online as having much information to evaluate.

Also, I no longer hold onto to that built into our DNA compulsion to find perfection, or grade things better or worse. I'm as guilty as any ancient photo dude of devouring those film shootouts of yore, "We test 23 high speed slide films! Which is best?" Well, I've learned that one man's Best is another man's Bleh. I loved the warm cast of Agfa slide films, others hated it because it wasn't "true."

Once you get into conventional B&W, oh heck, even C-41 developed at home, you have so many factors, all of which are important: the film, the developer, the developing technique. The latter can make either of the former look great or bad.

sfaber17 · May 4, 2015

ozmoose said:
Thanks, nworth. My original query was...

A clarification needed, please. You wrote (quote) "Replace sodium metaborate with carbonate - bicarbonate buffer (40 g sodium carbonate, 10 g sodium bicarbonate). By this do you mean, with carbonate AND bicarbonate buffer, or with carbonate OR bicarbonate buffer? I am no chemist, but I wonder what would happen if I use the two in the one mix, instead of one or the other.

He means both together which form a buffer, but it seems like the wrong pH range. sodium metaborate can be made from borax and sodium hydroxide.

epatsellis · May 4, 2015

Hmmm... I may have to dig some out of storage to play with, as well as DK60

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Trask · May 4, 2015

Paul Verizzo said:
I have learned that other than overall tonality of a given image, you can't learn any details from a computer screen. Unless perhaps an A-B enlarged segment comparison, I don't see most images online as having much information to evaluate.

Also, I no longer hold onto to that built into our DNA compulsion to find perfection, or grade things better or worse. I'm as guilty as any ancient photo dude of devouring those film shootouts of yore, "We test 23 high speed slide films! Which is best?" Well, I've learned that one man's Best is another man's Bleh. I loved the warm cast of Agfa slide films, others hated it because it wasn't "true."

Once you get into conventional B&W, oh heck, even C-41 developed at home, you have so many factors, all of which are important: the film, the developer, the developing technique. The latter can make either of the former look great or bad.

I wasn't judging the use of DK-50 as good or bad -- I'm intrigued of what it might bring to the game. I respectfully disagree that one cannot learn much from a computer image, as I think a perusal of the Gallery will demonstrate. There might not be enough to get every nuance of what's on the film, but you'll certainly get an idea of what the film/developer combination might provide. Compare an image from Tri-X in Acufine and Tri-X in Panthermic 777, I think you could see the difference on a computer screen.

dynachrome · May 4, 2015

I have a supply of DK-50 in metal cans. It should be fun to see how many are still good. I plan to experiment with it using mostly 120 film. From what I remember it will be a little grainy for 35mm.

nworth · May 4, 2015

ozmoose said:
Thanks, nworth. My original query was...

A clarification needed, please. You wrote (quote) "Replace sodium metaborate with carbonate - bicarbonate buffer (40 g sodium carbonate, 10 g sodium bicarbonate). By this do you mean, with carbonate AND bicarbonate buffer, or with carbonate OR bicarbonate buffer? I am no chemist, but I wonder what would happen if I use the two in the one mix, instead of one or the other.

...

The buffer would be sodium carbonate plus sodium bicarbonate. Actually, I see little point in this variation, since the developer is used as a one shot. Perhaps someone thought it was more stable, but I doubt that it is. Or maybe it is just a matter of the availability of materials.

Paul Verizzo · May 4, 2015

dynachrome said:
I have a supply of DK-50 in metal cans. It should be fun to see how many are still good. I plan to experiment with it using mostly 120 film. From what I remember it will be a little grainy for 35mm.

dynachrome, the whole point of what I posted was that unless you are making billboards, the grain should be just fine with 35mm on 100 speed films. The long time belief of high grain with DK-50 on 35mm films in the 1930's through the 1950's was probably reasonable. But today's films are so much inherently finer, you will be surprised.

JW PHOTO · May 4, 2015

Paul Verizzo said:
dynachrome, the whole point of what I posted was that unless you are making billboards, the grain should be just fine with 35mm on 100 speed films. The long time belief of high grain with DK-50 on 35mm films in the 1930's through the 1950's was probably reasonable. But today's films are so much inherently finer, you will be surprised.

Yes, I just found that out and I'm happy to report grain is "NOT" a problem with DK-50 and ISO 100 35mm film. I used it diluted 1+4 and the negatives are very nice. I'm now going to try it with the same film in 120 where it should really shine. I have a gallon made up so I'm going to have fun with this one. John W

Down Under · May 4, 2015

Many thanks, nworth. I need to have these things explained to me...

I am away from home this week, shooting old ruins (buildings, not people) in color. Back home in a few days, I will mix up a batch of DK50, shoot some B&W film on Saturday, and process it pronto.

So from Sunday, I hope to have some useful notes to comment to this thread. So far, everything I've read has been most helpful.

Again, a special thanks to nworth and particularly the OP, and to all those who have provided so much additional information. To quote a popular Aussie turn of phrase, you are all legends!!

Ian Grant · May 5, 2015

Just a correction the Wellington MQ Borax Fine Grain Developer has 20g Sodium Sulphite per litre.

THE WELLINGTON BORAX-M.Q. DEVELOPER.
For the production of delicate he-grain negatives the following metol-hydroquinone developer in which borax replaces the usual alkali will be found of great value. Its advantages are most marked in the development of very small negatives of the Verascope type, positives from which are generally produced by enlargement or viewed by magnification. It works best with plates which have been fully exposed.

Ian Grant said:
Kodak DK50 is derived from the much earlier Wellington MQ Borax formula, there was probably a D50 with Borax instead of Metaborate

Wellington MQ Borax

Metol 2g
Hydroquinone 2g
Sodium Sulphite 20g
Borax 20g
Water to 1 litre

Through a few step changes which include a Borax version of DK60 this eventually evolved to D76.

Ian

It's worth noting that Wellington had collaborated wit George Eastman in Rochester in the late 1880's, was the first manager of the new Kodak factory in Harrow UK leaving to join Elliot & Fry (Barnet) before founding Wellington & ward in 1895, later to be taken over by Ilford in 1929.

Ian

Rudeofus · May 5, 2015

Ian Grant said:
Its advantages are most marked in the development of very small negatives of the Verascope type, positives from which are generally produced by enlargement or viewed by magnification. It works best with plates which have been fully exposed.

Can we interpret this statement as "this developer will give fine grain but loses some speed" ?

Ian Grant · May 5, 2015

Rudeofus said:
Can we interpret this statement as "this developer will give fine grain but loses some speed" ?

With the plates & roll films of the time probably, Wellington & Ward's comments in their Manual are comparing the developer to much more vigorous Pyro and MQ Carbonate developers.

With modern films there would be no speed loss compared to D76 in fact there should be a slight increase as higher Sulphite levels drop the effective EI slightly. Remember this developer pre-dates the the growing use of 35mm film in still cameras and was published first some years before Kodak published their first Fine grain developer formula, so don't expect it to be as fine grained as D76

Ian

pentaxpete · May 5, 2015

My Photos with DK50 formula

Here are some of My photos with home-made DK50 formula and outdated film as it is supposed to give a low Fog Level
Pentax LX , outdated Kodak Tri-X in DK50 1+1
https://flic.kr/p/dNvE8N
Asahi Pentax KX + Hanimex zoom at full aperture, DK50 1+1 7 mins, outdated Tri-X
https://flic.kr/p/dzKgEd
Chinon CG-5, 50m f1.9 at full aperture, the same outdated Tri-X rated 200 ASA and DK50 1+1
https://flic.kr/p/dQVNQN

Paul Verizzo · May 5, 2015

JW PHOTO said:
Yes, I just found that out and I'm happy to report grain is "NOT" a problem with DK-50 and ISO 100 35mm film. I used it diluted 1+4 and the negatives are very nice. I'm now going to try it with the same film in 120 where it should really shine. I have a gallon made up so I'm going to have fun with this one. John W

Woo hoo!

JW PHOTO · May 5, 2015

Paul Verizzo said:
Woo hoo!

Paul, check the 100% crops in the thread above (Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in DK-50, Rodinal, PC-TEA, WD2H+, Pyrocat-MC, Thornton's 2-bath) and you'll see what I mean. Could be the 1+4 dilution helps, but I would think it should work the opposite and produce larger grain. Go figure I guess??? John W

Paul Verizzo · May 5, 2015

JW PHOTO said:
Paul, check the 100% crops in the thread above (Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in DK-50, Rodinal, PC-TEA, WD2H+, Pyrocat-MC, Thornton's 2-bath) and you'll see what I mean. Could be the 1+4 dilution helps, but I would think it should work the opposite and produce larger grain. Go figure I guess??? John W

Links?

John Wiegerink · May 5, 2015

Paul Verizzo said:
Links?

Paul, no links as it's on this forum. Just click and open. John W

Paul Verizzo · May 12, 2015

Just tried with some FortePan 400 I had. Did they respool Royal-X Pan? (I think that's what it was called.) Wow, grain-ola, good enough to eat.

I interpolated my development time from Tri-X in DK-50 1:1 and D-76, and I hit the mark, about 14 minutes.

I wonder if some of the grain is attributable to the very long development time with very low sulfite. Look at the Massive Development Chart and this is just a plain, slow to develop film in any developer.

Paul Verizzo · May 24, 2015

If one takes the official developing time for Tri-X in D-76 1+1, and then DK-50 1+1, you'll see that it's 62% of the former. The developing time for Plus-X in the unofficial Massive Development Chart in those two developers is at 64%. That's what I used for my great results.

Do we see a trend here?

I will be running some tests over the next two weeks on TMX, TMY, and Fomapan 100 using this ratio of the two developers.

Paul Verizzo · Mar 16, 2019

The interest in DK-50 has kicked in again with this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/dk-50-developer.62109/page-2#post-2162140

So, I hereby cross bump.

DK-50, Still alive and well?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency